Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220217184829.1991035-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
 <20220217184829.1991035-4-jakobkoschel@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wg1RdFQ6OGb_H4ZJoUwEr-gk11QXeQx63n91m0tvVUdZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6DFD3D91-B82C-469C-8771-860C09BD8623@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiyCH7xeHcmiFJ-YgXUy2Jaj7pnkdKpcovt8fYbVFW3TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgLe-OSLTEHm=V7eRG6Fcr0dpAM1ZRV1a=R_g6pBOr8Bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK8P3a0DOC3s7x380XR_kN8UYQvkRqvE5LkHQfK2-KzwhcYqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0DOC3s7x380XR_kN8UYQvkRqvE5LkHQfK2-KzwhcYqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:43:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wicJ0VxEmnpb8=TJfkSDytFuf+dvQJj8kFWj0OF2FBZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator
 after the loop
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Jakob <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@vu.nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@vu.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:25 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> I looked at the gcc documentation for this flag, and it tells me that
> it's default-enabled for std=c99 or higher. Turning it on for --std=gnu89
> shows the same warning, so at least it doesn't sound like the actual
> behavior changed, only the warning output. clang does not warn
> for this code at all, regardless of the --std= flag.

Ok, so we should be able to basically convert '--std=gnu89' into
'--std=gnu11 -Wno-shift-negative-value' with no expected change of
behavior.

Of course, maybe we need to make -Wno-shift-negative-value be
conditional on the compiler supporting it in the first place?

I really would love to finally move forward on this, considering that
it's been brewing for many many years.

I think the loop iterators are the biggest user-visible thing, but
there might be others.

And some googling seems to show that the reason for
-Wshift-negative-value is that with C99 the semantics changed for
targets that weren't two's complement. We *really* don't care.

Of course, the C standard being the bunch of incompetents they are,
they in the process apparently made left-shifts undefined (rather than
implementation-defined). Christ, they keep on making the same mistakes
over and over. What was the definition of insanity again?

                  Linus